SynthesisBMJ open2023
What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moving beyond a legacy paradigm: A vision for equitable access to quality medicines in Africa.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- FIGO call to action: Multisectoral approach to postpartum hemorrhage.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness results comparing heat-stable carbetocin & other uterotonics in postpartum heamorrhage prevention in Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesise evidence on the perceptions of healthcare providers (HCPs) about the quality of oxytocin and misoprostol available in their settings, and their actions as a result of these perceptions.
designMixed-methods systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting HCPs' perceptions about oxytocin or misoprostol quality. DATA SOURCES: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Ebscohost, Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, Portal regional BVS, PsycNET, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to 31 March 2022 and grey literature. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Center for Evidence-Based Management critical appraisal tool for surveys. For qualitative studies, we used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We conducted separate quantitative and qualitative syntheses and integrated the evidence into a narrative synthesis (convergent segregated review design).
resultsWe included five (three quantitative and two qualitative) studies, of moderate or high quality, conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In the three quantitative studies (N=7065 participants), 8.2-21.3% of HCPs had experienced problems due to known/suspected low-quality oxytocin and 3.3% due to low-quality misoprostol. In the two qualitative studies, perception of oxytocin quality varied. In quantitative studies, when confronted with suspected/known low-quality oxytocin, 29-78% of HCPs would inform a supervisor, 62% would document this in writing, 45-54% would change to another drug and 5-37% would double the dose of oxytocin. Qualitative evidence suggests that many HCPs do not formally report suspected low-quality oxytocin or misoprostol, and use higher doses or additional uterotonics.
conclusionsA proportion of HCPs from LMICs perceive oxytocin to be of low quality. There is very limited evidence on their perceptions about misoprostol. Many HCPs do not report suspected low-quality uterotonics but change to another medicine or double the dose of oxytocin. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022323812.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.